​​Research Prioritization in Indian Livestock Sector: A Policy Appraisal

In spite of the potential offered by livestock, this sector faces emerging challenges which may impede its growth potential. It is assumed that technology development through focused research efforts will be a key factor in addressing these challenges. There exists considerable scope to further increase productivity of livestock through technological interventions. Given the low investment of resources in agricultural research and the existence of other competitive sectors which aim for the same resources, research prioritization in livestock sector becomes all the more important. There have been earlier studies which have analyzed the livestock research priorities at the country level (Birthal et al., 2002). However, evidence-based studies on research prioritization in the recent past are scanty. The proposed study intends to address this research gap and provide an objective assessment of macro level research priorities for the livestock sector in India.
 

The study uses multi-criteria scoring model as per the framework given by Birthal et al. (2002), Das and Khunt (2008), Kumar et al. (2013) and Jha and Singh (2015). The approach incorporates multiple objectives for making choices, viz. growth, equity, sustainability and participation in trade. The major steps in scoring models are construction of Initial Baseline (IBL), modification of IBL and construction of Final Baseline (FBL); which ultimately leads to assessment of research priorities. Construction of IBL involves identification of indicators that summarize the above-mentioned objectives, viz. value of production (as a measure of growth); number of poor people and undernourished population (as measures of equity); area under Common Property Resources (CPR) (as a measure of sustainability) and value of exports (as a measure of participation in trade). For measurement of each of the indicators the sources of data are summarized in Appendix 1. It is to be noted that each of the above indicators was assigned an equal weight (0.25).
 
Modification of initial baseline
 
Nine intensity indicators were identified for modification of the IBL (Appendix 2). The efficiency modifiers were represented by yield gaps in indigenous cattle, crossbred cattle and buffalo; equity modifiers were represented by per capita state domestic product, combined share of landless, marginal and small farmers in livestock population (Total Livestock Units1), per capita availability of milk, eggs and meat and sustainability modifier was represented by livestock density (Total Livestock Units/ha of net cropped area plus land available for livestock).
 
Final baseline (FBL)
 
The impact of individual modifiers was summed up to get the net aggregate impact of all modifiers. The IBL was then modified using the aggregate impact to obtain the FBL, indexed to sum up to 100 across states.
 

Earlier studies have emphasized on the relatively low resource allocation to livestock research as compared to other agricultural sectors. Birthal et al. (2002) had reported that although livestock’s share in total agricultural research resources have varied over time, yet, it is low compared to its contribution to agricultural gross domestic product. Kumar et al. (2013) had observed that by commodity or commodity group, livestock research demands highest share (33.9 per cent) of the total resources.
 
Distribution of extensity parameters
 
Table 1 elicits the shares of different states in indicators/extensity parameters, viz. value of production, poverty, undernourished population, sustainability and exports. Distribution of resources according to share in total Value of Output (VOP) implies that resources should be allocated across states in proportion to their shares in total value of output produced in the country. Accordingly, Table 1 indicates that Uttar Pradesh (12%) claims the highest allocation, followed by Rajasthan (10.5%), Madhya Pradesh (8%) Andhra Pradesh (8%) and Maharashtra (7%). Birthal et al. (2002) had assigned highest priority to Uttar Pradesh, followed by Maharashtra, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Gujarat and Haryana, when research resource allocation was prioritized with the sole objective of accelerating growth. Distribution of poor population, across states, suggests highest allocation for Uttar Pradesh (22%) and Bihar (14%). Distribution of CPR’s is skewed in favour of few states, with four states only accounting for more than 50 per cent of the country’s CPR (Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat). When the focus of resource allocation was on reducing under-nourished population, Uttar Pradesh (19%) and Bihar (11%), rank highest in priority. These states are followed, in order of rankings, by Maharashtra (10%), Madhya Pradesh (7.5%), Rajasthan (6%) and Gujarat (6%). The indicator pertaining to export was meant to prioritize investment in promotion of trade as per shares of states in the country’s total value of exports. As per this resource allocation criterion, the states with high rankings are Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, respectively in that order.


 
Initial baseline
 
The above distribution of each indicator had prioritized different states differently. A composite index (weighted sum of Indicators) was generated by assigning equal weights to each specified objective to arrive at an initial baseline for research resource allocation. The results of the same are presented in Table 2.


       
When poverty is superimposed on VOP index, Uttar Pradesh further strengthens its first place in priority ranking. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra retain their positions in the top five ranked states, while Bihar comes up to fifth place at the cost of Andhra Pradesh. With the addition of undernourished population, the position of Uttar Pradesh as the highest ranked state further strengthens. Bihar climbs up substantially in the priority ranking, becoming the second ranked state, followed closely by Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan. Punjab, Haryana, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh lose their positions further with the addition of both the equity indicators; while West Bengal gains in position in the priority rankings. When sustainability implications are considered by including CPR in the composite index, Uttar Pradesh maintains its first rank, but with reduced share in research resources (12%). Rajasthan (11%) gains in ranking significantly to second place, followed by Maharashtra (9%), Andhra Pradesh (8%) and Madhya Pradesh (8%). West Bengal (4%) loses its share in resource allocation, substantially. When all the indicators are considered in the final composite index (IBL), the priority rankings suggest that Uttar Pradesh (13%) and Rajasthan (11%) should have the highest shares in resource allocation, followed by Andhra Pradesh (8.5%), Maharashtra (8%) and Madhya Pradesh (8%).
 
Final baseline
 
The final baseline for different states is shown in Table 3. When extensity indicators and their modifiers are considered together, the shares of states in livestock research resources increase by the highest margin for Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Odisha, Gujarat and Maharashtra. On the other hand, shares of sates like Haryana, Punjab, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal decline substantially. This implies the need for including the intensity parameters in any policy decisions on research resource allocation. The FBL/VOP ratios as given in Table 3 further buttress this point. It is assumed that in the absence of tradeoffs among research objectives, FBL/VOP ratio would be closer to unity. The FBL/VOP ratio lies between 0.95 and 1.05 for Jammu and Kashmir, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Sikkim, implying  that their shares in total livestock research resources remain indifferent whether resources are allocated based on growth potential indicator alone or in combination with equity, sustainability and export potential considerations.  States which gain over the VOP based allocation in terms of their shares in total research resource allocations, when equity, sustainability and export considerations are considered, are Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Bihar, Odisha, Gujarat, Maharashtra and all the north-eastern states except Sikkim. On the other hand states which will lose the most when equity, sustainability and export indicators are included are Haryana, Punjab, Uttarakhand, Kerala and Chhattisgarh.


 
Species-wise prioritization in states
 
The species-wise distribution of adjusted value of production2 in different states is presented in Table 4. Cattle ranks as the major livestock species for research investment, overwhelmingly, in Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir and Uttarakhand in the north; Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu in the south; almost all the states in the east with the exception of Bihar; Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra in the west; and almost all the north-eastern states. Research on buffalo emerges as the major priority in mostly the northern states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. Other states, where buffalo garners substantial research attention, are Andhra Pradesh in the south; and Gujarat and Rajasthan in the west. Goat stakes claims for the highest research priority in West Bengal and Goa. In order of research priority, sheep emerges as the major species only in the southern state of Telengana and to some extent in states like Andhra Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir. Pig stakes claim for substantial research investment in the north-eastern states of Mizoram and Nagaland.  Poultry research is important in Haryana in the north; all the southern states except Karnataka and Tripura in the north-east.


 
State-wise prioritization for species
 
Table 5 elicits the distribution of species-wise research resources across states. In case of cattle research major proportion of resources should be prioritized to Uttar Pradesh in the northern region; Karnataka in the southern region; Bihar in the east and almost all the western states. Birthal et al. (2002) had also reported that cattle research should target mainly the western region (Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Maharashtra). For investment in buffalo research, Uttar Pradesh in the northern region; Andhra Pradesh in the south; and Rajasthan in the west emerge as the priority states. Other states to be targeted for buffalo research are Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra. Investment of resources on goat research should target the eastern states of West Bengal, Bihar and Odisha; and also Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. Investment in sheep research should target the southern states and Rajasthan. Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Nagaland and Assam claim the major share of research resources for pigs. In case of poultry research, the states to target are Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in south; Maharashtra in West and West Bengal in East.


 
Species-wise priorities for products and services
 
Table 6 elicits the priorities for products and services that a species provides. About 69 per cent of resources for cattle research should be earmarked for milk production and 30 per cent for draught power research. Das and Khunt (2008), in their study in Gujarat state of India had also reported that in terms of commodity-wise priority, the highest share (83%) was claimed by milk, followed by draught power (15%) for cattle. In case of buffalo, significantly higher proportion (90%) of research resources - than in case of cattle - should be spent on milk production. About 7 per cent of the rest of research resources should be invested in meat (Carabeef) research with draft power and hides sharing the rest. Meat production emerges as the priority research area for sheep (97%). For goat, 73 per cent of research resources should be spent on meat, while 25 per cent should be earmarked for milk. For both the small ruminant species, higher proportion of resources should be spent on skin than wool research. Greater proportion (59%) of poultry research resources should be earmarked for meat research than for egg research (41%).


 

The study revealed significant tradeoffs in the priority rankings of states when equity and sustainability indicators are considered along with efficiency parameter (denoted by value of production); implying ignoring social and environmental dimensions will lead to sub-optimal research resource allocation across regions. Species-wise prioritization including all the criteria reveals that cattle and buffalo stake the highest claims on research resources. The study also reveals inter-regional variations in allocation of research resources based upon species.
 

None.